May 7, 2008

We played by the rules, set by you, the D.N.C. members, and campaigned as hard as we could, in as many places as we could, to acquire delegates. Essentially, the popular vote is not much better as a metric than basing the nominee on which candidate raised more money, has more volunteers, contacted more voters, or is taller.

His argument is, of course, that candidate with the most pledged delegates should get the superdelegates' vote, but, really, why shouldn't the superdelegates take every relevant factor into account? The superdelegates are part of the rules, so it isn't necessary to bind them to any specific "metric" in order to legitimize their role.

Let them consider who is taller if tallness helps the party with the election. And it does, doesn't it? Picture a debate with McCain and Obama. Literally, picture it, the 2 men standing side by side. Obama's height will affect voters' minds whether you like it or not.

Steven asks whats the point of having superdelegates. The answer I suspect is to correct the political judgment of "the people" if the supers think the peoples' judgment is suspect. Why do I suspect Steven asks a rhetorical question? :)

What is interesting to me is that the DNC would choose such a "originalist" approach to elections. Its almost like the super delegates are the equivalent of the hated electoral college that the dems seem to dislike so much.

"why shouldn't the superdelegates take every relevant factor into account?"

Plouffe says that ("But of course superdelegates are free to and have been utilizing their own criteria for deciding who our nominee should be."). The most popular other factors (electability, momentum, etc.) also swing to Obama's favor.

But he says the one that should be most relevant is that one that shaped Obama's (and Clinton's) campaign: the race for delegates. Even the factor that the Clinton campaign increasingly relied on--popular vote--is no longer one that gives her the win.

Its almost like the super delegates are the equivalent of the hated electoral college

More like the 2000 Supreme Court.

I'm all for fixing the primary process. Number one on the list would be reducing the number of superdelegates. The big problem with them this time around, I think, was that so many of them declared so early.

Of all of the past (and present) presidents of the United States, only five have had brown eyes. The rest have all had blue eyes, or some close variation of blue. Washington - blue eyes. Lincoln - blue eyes. Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes - blue eyes.

Primary "election" voters and caucus participants are not representative of the general election voter population and do not necessarily represent "the will of the people". They only represent typical primary and caucus behavior, which is frequently disfunctional. Seasoned politicians know this but haven't come up with an attractive means of compensating without alienating the problem (those self-same primary voters and caucus goers).

At breakfast the other day, I overheard an older fellow say that Bill would be pulling the strings in a Hillary administration. Judging from Bill's inability to keep his hands off Hill's campaign, I believe this to be true. Does America want four more years of Bill Clinton?

FLS--the anecdote is intesting given President Clinton's case of what I suspect is acute narcicissim. That said, I think HRC is much too strong a person to put up with it in a policy situation. It doesnt mean, however, that Mr. Clinton wouldn't be making statements or off the cuff remarks, and for sure, he would have his own press following. His chances for embarrassing an HRC administration would be much bigger than, say, a breadbasket. (which is also the reason that Senator Obama is most definitely not going to put Ms. Clinton on the ticket should he get the nomination.)

Remember when Gore walked up to Bush in a debate while Bush was talking, trying to intimidate Bush with height? And Bush just looked at him, nodded, and went back to talking, making Gore look like an idiot?

Plouffe says that ("But of course superdelegates are free to and have been utilizing their own criteria for deciding who our nominee should be."). The most popular other factors (electability, momentum, etc.) also swing to Obama's favor.

I don't see that at all. Obama does pick up some swing voters, but his main constituency is about as far from swing as you can get. Hillary does far better with the "Reagan Democrats", and Obama is likely to lose most of them to McCain. McCain is the son and grandson of 4 star Admirals (first such pair in U.S. history), was a war hero twice during Vietnam, and has two boys in the military, one fresh back from a tour of Anbar. This plays extremely well to the Reagan Democrats. Peace Corp does not. And Obama claims to be the one to bring everyone together, but has not track record of it, compared to McCain who has a long storied career in that area (which is why a lot of Republicans don't like him).

FLS, you of course know that was the theory behind Hillary's inevitability. How many times did you hear Tim Russert and others like him declare in 2000 and 2004 as if it was fact that "if Bill Clinton was on the ballot, he'd beat Bush in a landslide."

Something happened in just the past few months to make the prospect of another Clinton Administration go from dream to nightmare for a majority of Democrats. This, despite the (I'll repeat the MSM litany) good economy, lower deficit, peace in the world, and a general malaiselessness that Clinton brought us. The sun shone a little brighter. Water tasted better. People experienced more powerful orgasms. Why wouldn't America want to go back to that?

And Obama claims to be the one to bring everyone together, but has not track record of it, compared to McCain who has a long storied career in that area (which is why a lot of Republicans don't like him).

To stress this point, Obama is really Bush's third term. People despise Bush because he is a polarizing figure. Obama will be equally as polarizing (only from the left). Do we really want 4 more years of hardcore partisan politics. If no, Obama is unelectable.

Something happened in just the past few months to make the prospect of another Clinton Administration go from dream to nightmare for a majority of Democrats. This, despite the (I'll repeat the MSM litany) good economy, lower deficit, peace in the world, and a general malaiselessness that Clinton brought us.

I think two things happened:

(1) Democrats woke up and realised that the Clintons really were pretty much what Republicans had been saying they were for the past 15 years -- grasping and unprincipled, devotees of the "politics of personal destruction," etc. They just hadn't realised it when it was Republicans getting slimed.

(2) The economy deteriorated significantly between late 2007 and February-March 2008, prompting the Democrats' base to become even more left-wing and anti-business than they had been before. Clinton's bipartisan achievements with NAFTA and kicking thousands of poor people off Welfare, as well as a certain amount of extremely business-friendly tort reform (e.g. the PSLRA) are not the kind of things Democrats want to think about right now. Cutting capital gains taxes increases revenue? Does not compute. Obama's "fairness" > more revenue approach from the last debate may be revealing in its class-resentment, and kind of dumb from a pragmatic perspective, but it's in sync with a lot of people in his party. And not just with blacks and rich whites.

This English professor said on NPR (where else) that voters tend to go for the person with the "softer" sounding name. He was making the point with Clinton v. Obama, but we can take him to mean McCain too.

If elected, Obama would be only the 5th president with a non-Anglo or Gaelic name.

They include:

Martin Van BurenTheodore RooseveltFranklin RooseveltDwight Eisenhower

Christ, so much for melting pot, huh? 3 Dutchies, and a Swiss-German. Lovely.

If elected, McCain or Obama would be the first US President to be born outside the continental US.

McCain of course has an even stranger birthplace than Hawaii, in that he was born on an US Territory abroad, the American Zone in Panama ("Coco Solo" = single coconut, bald man joke alert!).

McCain would also be the first real "III" to attain office. William Jefferson Blythe III changed his name.

McCain would be only the second US President to graduate from Annapolis, Carter having been the 1st.

He'd be the first President with a Silver Star (and I believe only the 3rd with a Purple Heart, after Kennedy and Bush, Sr. no?). Other Silver Star recipients include Audie Murphy, Douglas McCarthur, and Pat Tillman, the Arizona linebacker who died in Afghanistan.

Obama would be the 8th Harvard President (Adams Sr & Jr, Hayes, both Roosevelts, Kennedy & Bush Jr), after an absolute logjam of Yale grads.

Warren G. Harding was in fact our pork President. Not for his dietary habits but for his habit of porking anything that moved. His record as a presidential philanderer is unmatched to this very day. He is Ty Cobb to Bill Clintons Bill Madlock. To this day he holds the records for most three ways in the Lincoln bedroom. The most famous of which was the one he enjoyed with Upton Sinclair and Emma Goldman. It was immortalized in Sinclair’s tome The Jungle which he named after he got a look at Ms. Goldman’s cootch.

It is hard to remember now, but the left wing of the Democratic Party really disliked Clinton for most of his term. They only flocked to his banner because of the impeachment fiasco, because they hated Republicans even more. Then came Bush, who (of course) they completely loathed. So they got used to talking about how awesome Clinton had allegedly been -- not because they'd actually thought he was awesome, but because it made for good talking points versus Bush. Over time I suspect they actually came to think of things that way.

Obama represents a left-wing alternative to the Clintons. Once they realized that, the left went right back to hating Bill and Hillary, just like they did in the early and mid 90s.

What do you mean ‘if’? I have zero doubt that he’ll pretty much follow in Jimbo’s footsteps. Only this time Iran will be nuking Israel.

Democrats woke up and realised that the Clintons really were pretty much what Republicans had been saying they were for the past 15 years -- grasping and unprincipled, devotees of the "politics of personal destruction," etc.

Actually I think they always realized it but weren’t willing to say it in public. Plus when the GOP went after him for getting a hummer, they had little choice, politically, but to circle the wagons. Pretty much the equivalent of I can call my brother a cocksucker but if you do, I’ll kick your ass.

Obama nicknames:

Barry (self-appointed)ObambiBHO? (fill in the blanks

How about Obasm? I think that’s what all those squealing girls have when he talks. Or sneezes.

Now Nixon was our burger President

Nah I think that goes to Clinton. I heard he was fond of asking interns if they wanted a Whopper. I think he also pondered changing the name of the White House to White Castle.

Now Jimmy Carter is of course known as our peanut president. This was partly because he had been a peanut farmer. But was also because of the fact that he had a very very small penis. In fact Peanut Pubes was his nickname in the Naval Academy. He has long striven to erase this ignoble sobriquet by a record of achievement that has been capped with his charitable work with Habitat for Humanity. There he is helping obtain tremendous erections for poor people.

Could McCain become the Worst President, or has George Bush captured the title for all time?

James Bucanan and Woodrow Wilson are Americas worst presidents. Bush or Clinton or even Carter don't even come close. Bucanan did nothing to try and prevent civil war. Wilson led us into World War I and set the world up for World War II.

Warren G. Harding was in fact our pork President. Not for his dietary habits but for his habit of porking anything that moved.

My brush with greatness: When I was very young in Chicago, my parents hired Nan Britton to babysit me. Nan Britton claimed not only to have had an affair with Harding in the White House, but to have borne his child. He apparently had his way with her in a closet among other hideaways. My old sitter's claim did not survive a court challenge, but her book about him was said to have the ring of truth.

A perfect, Vin Scully-ish symmetry could be achieved if I could then claim that decades later in Los Angeles, I babysat for the young Monica Lewinsky. Alas, no such luck.

Most of the Presidents of the 1800’s were accomplished horseman. They were careful always to ride dark horses since no one really wanted to be tagged as the man on a white horse. The only President to never sit a saddle was of course James Buchanan. He was one of the most accomplished candidates to ever run for President. Congressman, Senator, diplomat, ambassador and Secretary of State, James Buchanan was of a somewhat foppish temperament and careful of his appearance. Although he was no equestrian, he was reputed to enjoy riding the baloney pony.

Ricpic, best time for the "Surprise" is June, which leaves 2-months before Denver for the wound to fester and become infected with hatred and bitterness. Only question is whether the surprise is in fact righteous or tentative. Don't want any bummer issues roiling the waters, must be truly supportable and despicable!

Of course, is there a another G. Flowers surprise lying in the woods waiting to bury HRC and WJC? Certainly don't want any such claim to be a phony baloney thingy!

Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton are on a boat cruise when suddenly it hits a log and the boat starts to sink. Jimmy Carter says "Women and children first." Nixon says "Fuck 'em" Bill Clinton asks "Do you think we have enough time?"

You know, Trooper--I simply can't believe your story that you are an accountant--NO accountant is noted for their sense of humor. You were clearly a displaced writer from the strike and masquerading as an accountant. :)

Ms Victoria asks at 5:27 about presidential anecdotes. OK: during my cadet days at USMA, it was the 50 class anniversary of the class of 1915--Generals Eisenhower and Bradley were among two members of that distinguished class. I was one of the several cadet flunkeys designated to squire them around. After the festivities had wound down, Ike and Brad were sitting in Grant Hall by themselves with the us playing potted palms. Ike turned to Brad and said: "you know Brad--this place hasnt changed one f**king bit in 50 years." It was all we could do to maintain our composure.

Spurs, LBJ held the Silver Star. There was a Kerry-like scandal about how he got it (on the only mission he ever went on, in combat). It's unfathomable to me how, with all the magazine coverage we had through the whole century, these horrible deeds could be forgotten so quickly. When the Clintons were in, it was just like having Johnson back. With Billy Sol Estes.

kerry was actually hamstrung by being TOO tall...and an an unfortunate phenotypical resemblance to Andre the Giant.He looked freakish, outside the voter norm.Ann, you are the pundit that is the most savvy this season on appeal to the visual cortex.your "Obama's secret weapon" was spot on.

in a debate sharing the same stage mccain will fair badly in the appeal to visual cortex.a U Mich study had respondents pick the candidate most likely to be elected both with and without sound to go with the visuals.visual without sound had a higher success rate.

sensory input data to visual cortex is weighted more heavily than aural data.

Then, Victoria (8:18), there is Bush (the guy who can drown people without sinking anything.)

Here is the high and low of it:

Things that have gone down: The economy, the dollar, the reputation of America in the world, our military deterrence, jobs that pay well, housing starts, real wages, the stock market if adjusted for inflation, and Bush's approval rating. Oh, and one more number that is going down: the number of border arrests is also down all along the U.S.-Mexican border. That's not because of increased security (which would lead to more, not less arrests) our new employer sanctions law (which only affects Arizona), any proposed wall (which isn't built yet), or even because of the lousy economy. It turns out that the real culprit is because our standard of living isn't as much higher than Mexico's as it used to be-- so for more and more of them, it just isn't worth it to come here and earn devalued dollars to send home when they could earn closer to that amount in pesos than they ever could before.

Things that have gone up: unemployment, uninsurance, the price of oil, the national debt, health care costs, the power of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan (since we left them pretty much alone to go invade Iraq in 2003), number of waivers granted to convicted felons in order to meet recruiting goals, the teen pregnancy rate (after years of decline), the number of abortions (also after years of decline), methamphetamine addiction, the size of the Federal bureaucracy (faster than it ever rose under a Democrat), mercury found in fish since legal levels of mercury pollution were upped by the 'clear skies act,' bankruptcies, foreclosures, military suicides, high paying jobs outsourced to India, low paying jobs created at Walmarts in the United States and Chinese ownership of American debt notes. Also Iraq war debt, and opposition to another war (even if we did have the military force to threaten, for example, that we could invade and occupy Iran.)

Eli, predicated in your vision of America seems to be an idea that only a Democrat in charge can America be in safe hands. You'll be surprised to hear that's not my viewpoint at all. I wasn't entirely displeased with Bill Clinton, since I found him like JFK, a centrist Democrat, and fiscally stringent (helped that he was a free-trader, which so many liberals have problems with and blame Bush for now).

But above all, I don't feel a need to be proud of America only when she's doing "right".

I want America to be the foremost military power in the world, and to protect her interests and safety of her citizens, above all else. I also want her to be fiscally sound.

Everything else is rhetoric based on "ideals", which do not strike a chord in me at all, as it's a Chinese laundry list of perpetual grievances which nothing can put right for some.

Things that have gone up: [...] the power of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan

When George Bush took office in January of 2000, the Taliban was in complete control of Afghanistan and enjoyed the official support of the Pakistani government. Today it is reduced to hiding in the foothills and staging ineffective guerrilla attacks on the American-backed Afghani government.

the power of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan (since we left them pretty much alone to go invade Iraq in 2003)

and that is undeniably true. Before we invaded Iraq we had all but eliminated the Taliban. But then we took our eye off the ball to go start that other war in Iraq, and since then the Taliban has rebounded to the point where they now control more of the Afghan countryside than does the Kabul government. Further, they also exercise de facto control over a lot of northwestern Pakistan (which is where bin Laden and al-Zuwahiri are supposedly hanging out in some portion of Pakistan which is under Taliban control.)

The bottom line is that even if George Bush was dead set on invading Iraq, he should have nailed the coffin shut on the Taliban and al-Qaeda first. He didn't, and dracula has re-emerged.

The only President to never sit a saddle was of course James Buchanan. He was one of the most accomplished candidates to ever run for President. Congressman, Senator, diplomat, ambassador and Secretary of State, James Buchanan...

Dang. He had all that experience. But then America dumped him. And voted for that other guy.

You know, the tall guy from Illinois that most people hadn't heard of until he ran for President. The guy who had only served four years in Congress, and before that a stint in the Illinois legislature, and before that he was a lawyer.

Obviously that guy was too inexperienced to be much of a leader. If only America had gone with experience in 1860 and opted for a second James Buchanan term.

The bottom line is that even if George Bush was dead set on invading Iraq, he should have nailed the coffin shut on the Taliban and al-Qaeda first. He didn't, and dracula has re-emerged.

Eli, may I ask you a personal question? You needn't answer, of course.

But when we invaded Afghanistan to take out the Taliban, where you in favour of it?

And had you the power, would you have voted against invasion, as for example, many of our legislators did?

In fact, when 9/11 happened, did you believe the Taliban were behind the whole thing?

At the time, now, not in hindsight.

Or if someone had told you, 7 days after Sept. 11, that the US government had planned all along that we would invade Afghanistan as this BBC article suggests on Sept 18 2001, would you have believed it?

Because Eli, I remember when a lot of people, doubted there was such a thing as an Al-Qaeda, but if there were, that the USA had no business invading a country like Afghanistan to protect our security.

Furthermore, they marched and protested to voice their opposition, and believed every conspiracy theory surrounding it, thereafter.

See, Eli, this topic is a strawman used by people who wish to cudgel the USA no matter what they do.

I'm asking, I'm not accusing, you know I'm not like that.

But I'd be curious to know your feelings post on the US position immediately after 9/11.

My position:

I was in favour of the Operation Enduring Freedom. I would've been in favour of preemptive action too.

Hmmm. This is getting into a Kevin Bacon thing, but Bill Campbell and his wife were neighbors of family friends (when I was quite young, and this was long after he'd split with Judith). We'd go over to his place and watch, you know, Oz or Charlie Brown, so they could get us all out of the way (I imagine).

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I accept your claim that your inclusion of "the Taliban" on a list of things that have increased since Bush took office wasn't meant to convey that the Taliban had increased in power since Bush took office.

It is still ridiculous to list "the Taliban is stronger than it was in 2003" as a list of bad things Bush has done -- because Bush is the reason the Taliban was weakened in the first place. Had he followed the Clinton Doctrine ("when our enemies attack us, respond by getting another blowjob") the Taliban really *would* be stronger than it was in 2000 -- completely in control of Afghanistan and, at this point, probably Pakistan too. As it is it is still pathetically weak; the insurgency consists mostly of Pashtun tribals fighting for a bigger piece of the pie, not the true believers that ran the show before.

As for the notion that we "took our eye off the ball" -- that's ridiculous. Our goal in going into Afghanistan was to take out Al Qaeda, not to eliminate the Taliban. Al Qaeda pulled up stakes shortly after the invasion and moved to Pakistan, where we can't touch them (unless, like Barack Obama, you'd like to recommend invading an unstable nuclear dictatorship without the dictator's permission). The only reason we stayed in Afghanistan was to help the new government -- the same reason we're staying in Iraq. We know you don't care about helping the government of Iraq, so why should we believe you care about helping the government of Afghanistan?

Yes, I was in favor of it. I continue to favor the Afghan war today (unlike Iraq, in Afghanistan, we are actually fighting the people who DID attack us on 9/11.)

That said, I fear very much that the window of opportunity that we had to finish them off several years ago has passed. The unanimous international support, the government in Pakistan that was willing to not negotiate with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and Afghans (who are fickle if anyone ever was) who believe that we were committed to the process-- have all gone by the wayside.

I still believe that we should persevere in Afghanistan but it will take a renewed national commitment, and a strong diplomatic effort to back that up, before we will be able to do what we could have done in 2003 had Bush not chosen to set it all aside in order to invade Iraq.

I still believe that we should persevere in Afghanistan but it will take a renewed national commitment, and a strong diplomatic effort to back that up, before we will be able to do what we could have done in 2003 had Bush not chosen to set it all aside in order to invade Iraq.

Glad to hear you personally were in favour of it. Others of your side of the aisle, not to mention others around the world, not so much.

I remember the outrage and sense of defiance aboutt the "bloodbath" the bombs would have on the populace and buildings (what buildings?).

The thing is, we're there to stay the course. So you don't have to fear about the Taliban getting more than a foothold from the Waziristan section they control in Pakistan.

There is a difference between skirmishes with factions which pop up, to regime change which is what we did.